Matalam V Sandiganbayan

736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Matalam vs. Sandiganbayan, Second Division

G.R. No. 165751. April 12, 2005.
*

DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM, petitioner, vs. THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE
SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Criminal Procedure; Information; Amendment and Substitution; Before the accused
enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or information may be
made without leave of court; After arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed
except if the same is beneficial to the accused; What Consists of a Substantial
Amendment.Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the
complaint or information may be made without leave of court. After the entry of a plea, only
a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and if it does not prejudice the
rights of the accused. After arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if
the same is beneficial to the accused. A substantial amendment consists of the recital of
facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All
other matters are merely of form.
Same; Same; Same; Test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment;
An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged
therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of
an opportunity to meet the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of
substance.The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment has been
said to be whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be available
after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have would be
equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. An amendment to an
information which does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect
the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet
the new averment had each been held to be one of form and not of substance.
_______________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
737
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 737
Same; Same; Same; Preliminary Investigation; Before or after a plea, a substantial
amendment in an information entitles an accused to another preliminary investigation
unless the amended information contains a charge related to or is included in the original
information.According to Retired Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado, before the
plea is taken, the information may be amended in substance and/or form, without leave of
court; but if amended in substance, the accused is entitled to another preliminary
investigation, unless the amended charge is related to or is included in the original
charge. Thus, the rule is: Before or after a plea, a substantial amendment in an information
entitles an accused to another preliminary investigation. However, if the amended
information contains a charge related to or is included in the original information, a new
preliminary investigation is not required.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The exception, i.e., charge is related or included in the
original information, should not be applied automatically; Circumstances in every case
must be taken into consideration before the accused is deprived of another preliminary
investiga-tion.While it is true that the charges in the original and amended informations
are related,i.e., an inquiry into one would have elicited substantially, if not precisely, the
same facts that an inquiry into the other would have brought into light, this fact should not
necessarily deprive an accused to his right to a new preliminary investigation. As above-
stated, the rule is that a new preliminary investigation is needed if there is a substantial
amendment. The exception, i.e., charge is related or included in the original information,
should not be applied automatically. The circumstances in every case must be taken into
consideration before the accused is deprived of another preliminary investigation.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A component part of due process in criminal justice,
preliminary investigation is a statutory and substantive right accorded to the accused
before trial.A component part of due process in criminal justice, preliminary investigation
is a statutory and substantive right accorded to the accused before trial. To deny their claim
to a preliminary investigation would be to deprive them of the full measure of their right to
due process.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The right of the accused to a preliminary investigation
should never be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of expediency.As to statement of
the court a quo that the
738
conduct of another preliminary investigation would be merely a waste of time, it must
be emphasized that though the conduct thereof will hold back the progress of the case, the
same is necessary in order that the accused may be afforded his right to a preliminary
investigation. The right of the accused to a preliminary investigation should never be
compromised or sacrificed at the altar of expediency.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The absence or incompleteness of a preliminary
investigation does not warrant the quashal or dismissal of the information neither does it
affect the courts jurisdiction over the case or impair the validity of the information or
otherwise render it defective.As to petitioners prayer that the Amended Information be
quashed and dismissed, the same cannot be ordered. The absence or incompleteness of a
preliminary investigation does not warrant the quashal or dismissal of the information.
Neither does it affect the courts jurisdiction over the case or impair the validity of the
information or otherwise render it defective. The court shall hold in abeyance the
proceedings on such information and order the remand of the case for preliminary
investigation or completion thereof.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Pete Quirino Quadra for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for the People.
R E S O L U T I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure assailing the resolutions
1
of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No.
26381, admitting the Amended Information
2
and denying petitioners Motion for
_______________
1
Penned by Associate Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr., with Associate Justices Edilberto G. Sandoval
and Efren N. Dela Cruz, concurring.
2
Rollo, pp. 27-33.
739
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 739
Reconsideration,
3
dated 12 January 2004 and 03 November 2004, respectively.
An information dated 15 November 2004 was filed before the Sandiganbayan
charging petitioner Datu Guimid Matalam, Habib A. Bajunaid, Ansari M. Lawi,
Muslimin Unga and Naimah Unte with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No.
3019, as amended, for their alleged illegal and unjustifiable refusal to pay the
monetary claims of Kasan I. Ayunan, Abdul E. Zailon, Esmael A. Ebrahim,
Annabelle Zailon, Pendatun Mambatawan, Hyria Mastura and Faizal I. Hadil. The
accusatory portion of the information reads:
That from the period January 1998 to June 1999, in Cotobato City, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused ARMM Vice-Governor and Regional
Secretary, DAR, DATU GUIMID MATALAM, a high ranking public official, HABIB A.
BAJUNAID, ANSARI M. LAWI, MUSLIMIN UNGA and NAIMAH UNTE, all low-ranking
public officials, committing the offense while in the performance of their official duties and
taking advantage of their public position, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding
one another, did there and then, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, cause undue injury to
several employees of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Cotobato City, thru evident bad
faith in the performance of their official duties to wit: by illegally and unjustifiably refusing
to pay the monetary claims of the complaining DAR employees namely: KASAN I.
AYUNAN, ABDUL E. ZAILON, ESMAEL A. EBRAHIM, ANNABELLE ZAILON,
PENDATUN MAMBATAWAN, HYRIA MASTURA and FAIZAL I. HADIL, for the period of
January 1998 to June 1999 amounting to P1,606,788.50 as contained in Civil Service
Resolutions Nos. 982027 and 990415 in the nature of unpaid salaries during the period
when they have been illegally terminated, including salary differentials and other
benefits.
4

On 14 August 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation.
_______________
3
Id., pp. 49-53.
4
Id., p. 55.
740
Per order of the court, a reinvestigation of the case was conducted where petitioner
filed his Counter-Affidavit.
5

After the reinvestigation, the public prosecutor filed a Manifestation and Motion
to Admit Amended Information Deleting the Names of Other Accused Except Datu
Guimid Matalam
6
to which petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to
the Motion to Admit the Alleged Amended Information Against the Accused Guimid
P. Matalam.
7
Thereafter, the public prosecutor filed his Reply
8
to which petitioner
filed a Rejoinder.
The Amended Information reads:
That on December 16, 1997 and for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Cotobato City,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused a public
officer being then the ARMM Vice-Governor and Regional Secretary DAR, committing the
offense while in the performance of his official duties and thru evident bad faith and
manifest partiality did there and then, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, cause undue
injury by illegally dismissing from the service complaining DAR-Maguindanao employees,
Cotobato City, namely: Kasan I. Ayunan, Abdul E. Zailon, Annabelle Zailon, Pendatum
Mambatawan, Hyria Mastura and Faizal I. Hadil, to their damage and prejudice
amounting to P1,606,788.50 by way of unpaid salaries during the period when they have
been illegally terminated including salary differentials and other benefits.
9

In his Motion to Dismiss, petitioner alleged that the amended information charges
an entirely new cause of action. The corpus delicti of the amended information is no
longer his alleged refusal to pay the backwages ordered by the Civil Service
Commission, but the alleged willful, unlawful and
_______________
5
Id., pp. 60-65.
6
Id., pp. 66-79.
7
Id., pp. 80-87.
8
Id., pp. 88-91.
9
Id., p. 77.
741
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 741
illegal dismissal from the service of the complaining witnesses. He insists that the
amended information charging a separate and entirely different offense cannot be
admitted because there would be a serious violation of due process of law. He claims
he is entitled to a preliminary investigation since he was not informed that he is
being charged for the alleged dismissal of the complaining witnesses and that he
was not given the opportunity to explain.
On 12 January 2004, the Sandiganbayan granted the Manifestation and Motion
to Admit Amended Information Deleting the Names of Other Accused Except Datu
Guimid P. Matalam. It admitted the Amended Information charging solely
petitioner for Violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019. The courta quo ruled:
What seems to be more crucial here is, whether the amendments made are not prejudicial
to the rights of the accused and are considered as a matter of form only, so that, if the
Amended Information is admitted, there would be no need to require the Public Prosecutor
to conduct another preliminary investigation in the observance of the rights of the accused
to due process. On the other hand, if the amendment would be substantial, necessarily,
another preliminary investigation should be accorded to the accused. Distinction of the two
is thus imperative.
. . .
The Amended Information charges essentially the same offense as that charged in the
original Information which is a Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019. Theoretically, therefore,
the amendment is a matter of form only.
Interestingly, however, the change in the recital of cause of action in the Amended
Information is very much noticeable. As correctly pointed out by accused Matalam,
the corpus delicti in the original Information was the alleged willful and confederated
refusal of the accused to pay the backwages of the complaining witnesses. The corpus
delicti in the Amended Information is now altered into the alleged illegal dismissal of the
complainants from their service by accused Matalam. Certainly, the two causes of action
differ differently from each other.
742
Following the aforementioned principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the amendments
seem to be substantial considering that the main defense of all the accused in the original
informationthe lack of a corresponding appropriation for the payment of the monetary
claims of the complaining witnesseswould not, in itself alone, stands [sic] as a defense for
accused Matalam in the Amended Information anymore. In the same manner, the evidence
that accused Matalam would have to present in the original Information, had it not been
found to be without prima facie evidence, will not be equally available to bail him out in the
Amended Information anymore. And further, although the nature of the offense charged
has not changed, the theory of the case as against accused Matalam is now deemed to have
been changed because the cause of action now varies and therefore, he would have to
formulate another defense again.
However, after making a meticulous and independent assessment on the evidence
obtaining on record, this Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Public
Prosecutor that the real and exact issue in this case is actually the alleged illegal dismissal
of the complaining witnesses. The issue of non-payment of their back-wages is merely
incidental because had it not been for the alleged illegal dismissal, their demand for
monetary claims should have not arisen. Put in another perspective, the surrounding
circumstances that brought about the issue of the alleged illegal dismissal were actually the
ones that spewed the issue of unpaid backwages.
Furthermore, as correctly observed by the Public Prosecutor, the change in the recital of
the cause of action does not conceivably come as a surprise to the accused. In fact, in his
counter-affidavit submitted before the Public Prosecutor, accused Matalam already took the
occasion to elaborate his version on the surrounding circumstances that brought about the
alleged illegal dismissal of the complaining witnesses. And these chain of circumstances,
actually, were the very preceding circumstances as to why the complaining witnesses had
suffered their alleged injury. The need for another preliminary investigation is therefore
not necessary.
Given the foregoing factual milieu, the rights of accused Matalam are not, after all, in
any way prejudiced because an inquiry to the allegations in the original cause of action
would certainly and necessarily elicit substantially the same facts to the inquiry of the
743
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 743
allegations in the new cause of action contained in the Amended Information.
To remand this case again to the Public Prosecutor would certainly be a waste of time
considering that accused, in his counter-affidavit, had already explained extensively his
defense on the new allegations contained in the Amended Information sought to be
admitted. And definitely, his projected defense would be the same assuming that another
preliminary investigation be conducted and that he would be required to submit another
counter-affidavit again.
10

On 11 February 2004, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration
11
which the
prosecution opposed.
12
On 03 November 2004, the Sandiganbayan denied the
Motion.
13
It explained:
While it is true that accused-movants defense in the original information could not by itself
stand alone as his defense to the amended one, however, the same would still be available
for the latter because although the two questioned causes of action literally varied, they are
nonetheless interrelated with each other. The essential ingredients of the amended
information are actually identical with those constituting the original, such that, the
inquiry into one would elicit substantially the same facts that an inquiry into the other
would reveal. And since these two causes of action had emanated from the same set of
factual settings, the evidence that accused-movant might have under the original
information would still be available and applicable to the amended one.
Be it noted that the private complainants lodged their complaint due to the alleged
injury they suffered as a consequence of the alleged refusal of the accused-movant to pay
them of their back-wages. And notably, based on the affidavit that the accused-movant had
submitted, his defense to this was due to the lack of funds appropriated for the said
purpose. But why was there no appropriation? Because, allegedly, the private complainants
were illegally dismissed from their service and as a result thereof, their names
_______________
10
Rollo, pp. 30-32.
11
Id., pp. 34-42.
12
Id., pp. 92-99.
13
Id., pp. 49-53.
744
were subsequently stricken off from the roster of employees in the government agency
where they were connected.
Culled from these factual settings, the root cause of the alleged injury suffered by the
private complainants would therefore be their alleged illegal dismissal from the service.
Otherwise, their names would not have been stricken off from the roster of employees in the
agency which they were connected with and the appropriation for the payment of their
salaries would have been continuously made.
Thus, from the foregoing, although there was a change in the recital of the cause of
action (from non-payment of backwages into illegal dismissal), the amendment of the
information did not however affect or alter the nature of the offense that was originally
charged. Neither did it change the basic theory of the prosecution since this remained to be
a violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 on account of the alleged injury caused to the private
complainants. And even if the prosecutions theory would now be premised on the new
cause of action (illegal dismissal), this would not however cause surprise to the accused-
movant nor would require him to undergo a material change or modification in his defense
because in presenting his defense, he still has to commence from the very same set of
factual settings that preceded the original cause of action. And evidently, this is the reason
why in the affidavit he submitted during the reinvestigation, his discussions therein
consisted not only of his defense to the original information but also included an extensive
discussion regarding his defense to the amended one.
This being so, the outright admission of the amended information even without affording
the accused-movant a new preliminary investigation did not amount to a violation of his
rights. To afford him another process of preliminary investigation would no longer serve
him and this court any better considering that he had already explained in the said
affidavit his defense to the amended information. Otherwise, if he is allowed to submit
another one, he is likely to elaborate again the very same arguments that he had already
invoked in his previous affidavit.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner argues that the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated 12 January
2004 and 03 November 2004 admitting the Amended Information charging a new
offense without conducting a preliminary investigation were issued without
745
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 745
jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
From the arguments raised by petitioner, the issue boils down to whether or not
petitioner was deprived of due process of law when the Sandiganbayan admitted the
Amended Information without conducting another or new preliminary
investigation. Firstly, petitioner maintains that a new preliminary investigation
should have been ordered because the corpus delicti in the Amended Information is
the termination of services of the complaining witnesses, while the corpus delicti in
the Original Information is the alleged refusal to pay the backwages of the
complaining witnesses. In other words, there being a new and distinct offense, he
should be entitled to a new preliminary investigation. Secondly, he contends he was
denied due process when the Sandiganbayan ruled that if he were allowed to
submit another counter-affidavit, he is likely to elaborate again the very same
argument that he had invoked in his previous affidavit considering that he would
have pointed out certain facts not contained in his counter-affidavit. He added that
despite the finding of the Sandiganbayan that the theory of the case against him
changed because the cause of action varies, and that he would have to formulate
another defense, the Sandiganbayan did not remand the case to the public
prosecutor for preliminary investigation because it was a waste of time since he had
already explained extensively in his counter-affidavit his defense on the new
allegations contained in the Amended Information.Thirdly, he asserts he was not
given the opportunity to show that he did not act with manifest partiality and
evident bad faith in the dismissal of the seven employees inasmuch as there are
other factors and circumstances that would support his posture.
In its Comment, respondent People of the Philippines, thru the Office of the
Special Prosecutor, stated that the admission of the Amended Information without
another preliminary investigation would not violate petitioners right to due process
on the ground that the amendment is merely formal, and
746
to require another preliminary investigation would not be in obedience to, but in
disregard of, the prime purpose for which a preliminary investigation is ordained by
law and jurisprudence. It maintains that petitioner acted with evident bad faith and
manifest partiality in illegally terminating the complainants from service.
On 10 March 2005, petitioner filed his Reply.
14

The initial question to be resolved is what kind of amendment was made in the
Information?
Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
SEC. 14. Amendment or substitution.A complaint or information may be amended, in
form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea.
After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of
court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the offense
charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only
upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court.
The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and copies of its order shall be
furnished all parties, especially the offended party.
Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the
complaint or information may be made without leave of court. After the entry of a
plea, only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and if it does
not prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment, a substantial
amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the accused.
15

_______________
14
Id., pp. 138-145.
15
People v. Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, 22 July 1999, 311 SCRA 58, 67.
747
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 747
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense
charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are
merely of form.
16

The following have been held to be merely formal amendments: (1) new
allegations which relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might
impose in the event of conviction; (2) an amendment which does not charge another
offense different or distinct from that charged in the original one; (3) additional
allegations which do not alter the prosecutions theory of the case so as to cause
surprise to the accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume; (4) an
amendment which does not adversely affect any substantial right of the
accused;
17
(5) an amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate vagueness
in the information and not to introduce new and material facts, and merely states
with additional precision something which is already contained in the original
information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for the crime charged.
18

The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment has been
said to be whether a defense under the information as it originally stood would be
available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence defendant might
have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other.
An amendment to an information which does not change the nature of the crime
alleged therein does not affect the essence of the offense or cause
_______________
16
Almeda v. Villaluz, G.R. No. L-31665, 06 August 1975, 66 SCRA 38, 45.
17
Teehankee, Jr. v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, 06 March 1992,207 SCRA 134, 142; Villaflor v.
Vivar, G.R. No. 134744, 16 January 2001, 349 SCRA 194, 201-202; People v. Degamo, G.R. No. 121211, 30
April 2003, 402 SCRA 133, 141.
18
Poblete v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 150610, 25 March 2004, 426 SCRA 346, 356, citing People v.
Montenegro, G.R. No. L-45772, 25 March 1988, 159 SCRA 236, 241.
748
surprise or deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had
each been held to be one of form and not of substance.
19

In the case at bar, the amendment was indeed substantial. The recital of facts
constituting the offense charged was definitely altered. In the original information,
the prohibited act allegedly committed by petitioner was the illegal and
unjustifiable refusal to pay the monetary claims of the private complainants, while
in the amended information, it is the illegal dismissal from the service of the private
complainants. However, it cannot be denied that the alleged illegal and
unjustifiable refusal to pay monetary claims is related to, and arose from, the
alleged illegal dismissal from the service of the private complainants.
According to Retired Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado, before the
plea is taken, the information may be amended in substance and/or form, without
leave of court; but if amended in substance, the accused is entitled to another
preliminary investigation, unless the amended charge is related to or is included in
the original charge.
20

Thus, the rule is: Before or after a plea, a substantial amendment in an
information entitles an accused to another preliminary investigation. However, if
the amended information contains a charge related to or is included in the original
information, a new preliminary investigation is not required.
The Sandiganbayan and the public prosecutor maintain that petitioner is not
entitled to a new preliminary investigation because the charges in the original
information and amended information are related and the latter has already
presented his defense on the amended charge. Further, remanding the case to the
Public Prosecutor for another pre-
_______________
19
People v. Casey, G.R. No. L-30146, 24 February 1981, 103 SCRA 21, 31-32.
20
Remedial Law Compendium by Florenz D. Regalado, Vol. 2, Ninth Revised Edition, p. 276.
749
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 749
liminary investigation would be a waste of time considering that petitioner had
already explained extensively his defense on the new allegations contained in the
Amended Information, that is, the accused already elaborated his version on the
surrounding circumstances that brought about the alleged dismissal of the
complaining witnesses. It added that the change in the recital of the cause of action
will not come as a surprise to the accused because the causes of action, though
different, are nonetheless interrelated, and that the rights of the accused will not be
prejudiced since the inquiry to the allegations in the original information will
certainly and necessarily elicit substantially the same facts to the inquiry of the
allegations in the Amended Information.
On the other hand, petitioner insists he should be given a new preliminary
investigation because he was not, among other things, given the opportunity to
show that he did not act with manifest partiality and evident bad faith in the
dismissal of the private complainants.
While it is true that the charges in the original and amended informations are
related, i.e., an inquiry into one would have elicited substantially, if not precisely,
the same facts that an inquiry into the other would have brought into light,
21
this
fact should not necessarily deprive an accused to his right to a new preliminary
investigation. As above-stated, the rule is that a new preliminary investigation is
needed if there is a substantial amendment. The exception, i.e., charge is related or
included in the original information, should not be applied automatically. The
circumstances in every case must be taken into consideration before the accused is
deprived of another preliminary investigation.
The following indispensable elements must be established to constitute a
violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, as amended:
_______________
21
People v. Magpale, 70 Phil. 176, 180.
750
1. 1.The accused is a public officer discharging administrative or official
functions or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
2. 2.The public officer committed the prohibited act during the performance of
his official duty in relation to his public position;
3. 3.The public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence; and
4. 4.His action caused undue injury to the government or any private party, or
gave any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to such
parties.
22

The third element of the offense states that the public officer acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence in committing the
prohibited act. Admittedly, the alleged illegal dismissal contained in the amended
charge gave rise to the original charge of failure to pay the monetary claims of
private complainants. It cannot be disputed that petitioner already discussed
circumstances surrounding the termination of services of the private complainants
in his counter-affidavit. However, we find nothing therein that would show that he
had already touched the issue of evident bad faith or manifest partiality. As can be
gathered from the counter-affidavit, there were arguments tending to counter the
presence of evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence,
but the same refer to the allegation of failure to pay the monetary claims and not to
the alleged illegal dismissal. Although one allegation stemmed from the other, the
court a quo and the public prosecutor cannot say the element of evident bad faith,
manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence is the same in both. This being
an element of the offense charged, petitioner should be given the opportunity to
thoroughly adduce evidence on the matter.
_______________
22
Quibal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109991, 22 May 1995, 244 SCRA 224, 231.
751
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 751
If petitioner is not to be given a new preliminary investigation for the amended
charge, his right will definitely be prejudiced because he will be denied his right to
present evidence to show or rebut evidence regarding the element of evident bad
faith and manifest partiality on the alleged dismissal. He will be denied due
process.
A component part of due process in criminal justice, preliminary investigation is
a statutory and substantive right accorded to the accused before trial. To deny their
claim to a preliminary investigation would be to deprive them of the full measure of
their right to due process.
23

Our rulings in the cases of People v. Magpale
24
andLava v. Gonzales
25
where no
new preliminary investigation was given because the charges in the amended
informations were related to, or included in, the original charges cannot apply in
the case at bar. The factual milieu in those cases is different from the case before
us.
In Magpale, the accused was charged with violation of Article 176 of the Revised
Penal Code for illegal possession of iron brand, and making or ordering the making
thereof. In the notices sent to the accused in connection with the preliminary
investigation of the complaint, the accused was informed not of one but of both. He
was given the chance, and was placed on guard, to defend himself for both charges.
Moreover, the right of the accused to have another preliminary investigation was
waived when he went forward with the trial.
In Lava, the accused was charged with Complex Rebellion but the charge was
later amended to Simple Rebellion. This court held that a new preliminary
investigation was not necessary there being no change in the nature of the crime
charged, and that accused failed to ask for a reinvestigation upon learning of the
amended information.
_______________
23
Villaflor v. Vivar, supra, note 17.
24
Supra, note 21.
25
G.R. No. L-23048, 31 July 1964, 11 SCRA 650.
752
In the case of petitioner herein, although the charge remained the same (Violation
of Section 3(e), Rep. Act No. 3019, as amended), the prohibited act allegedly
committed changed, that is, failure to pay monetary claims to illegal dismissal, and
he was not given the opportunity to submit his evidence on the absence or presence
of evident bad faith and manifest partiality as to the illegal dismissal. Petitioner
has not waived his right to a new preliminary investigation and, instead, is asking
for one.
It is settled that the preliminary investigation proper,i.e., the determination of
whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the
offense charged and should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment
of trial, is the function of the prosecution.
26

Our ruling in this case does not in any way divest the public prosecutor of its
duty under the Rules. This Court is not determining if petitioner should or should
not be brought to trial. What we are looking into is whether or not petitioner was
given all the opportunity to present countervailing evidence on the amended charge.
Accordingly, finding that petitioner was not given the chance to fully present his
evidence on the amended information which contained a substantial amendment, a
new preliminary investigation is in order.
As to statement of the court a quo that the conduct of another preliminary
investigation would be merely a waste of time, it must be emphasized that though
the conduct thereof will hold back the progress of the case, the same is necessary in
order that the accused may be afforded his right to a preliminary investigation. The
right of the accused to a preliminary investigation should never be compromised or
sacrificed at the altar of expediency.
Finally, as to petitioners prayer that the Amended Information be quashed and
dismissed, the same cannot be or-
_______________
26
Sistoza v. Desierto, G.R. No. 144784, 03 September 2002, 388 SCRA 307, 323.
753
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 753
dered. The absence
27
or incompleteness
28
of a preliminary investigation does not
warrant the quashal or dismissal of the information. Neither does it affect the
courts jurisdiction over the case or impair the validity of the information or
otherwise render it defective. The court shall hold in abeyance the proceedings on
such information and order the remand of the case for preliminary investigation or
completion thereof.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. Respondent
courts resolutions dated 12 January 2004 and 03 November 2004 in Criminal Case
No. 26381 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Respondent court is directed to order
the Office of the Ombudsman to forthwith conduct a preliminary investigation of
the charge embodied in the Amended Information filed against petitioner. It is
further directed to suspend the proceedings in the said case pending termination of
the preliminary investigation, and thereafter to take such action on petitioners case
as may be warranted by the results of said preliminary investigation.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, respondents resolutions reversed and set aside.
Note.The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the courts
jurisdiction over the case nor does it impair the validity of the complaint or
otherwise render it defective. (People vs. Madraga, 344 SCRA 628 [2000])
o0o
_______________
27
Villaflor v. Vivar, supra, note 17; Paredes v. Sandiganbayan,G.R. No. 89989, 28 January 1991, 193
SCRA 464, 469.
28
Torralba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101421, 10 February 1994, 230 SCRA 33, 41.
754

Matalam V Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matalam V Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Matalam vs. Sandiganbayan, Second Division

You might also like